what good would that do? I cannot change other's opinions of my pictures, and if I were interested in preserving the illusion of success to myself I would not have opened myself up in this way to begin with.
I feel like the people who actually just said they didn't like them have done me the greatest favor here. This thread was, for me, as much an exercise in information gathering as a way to court specific advice.
asfarley
Member
If you're looking for a good source of brutal feedback, there's a flickr group called DeleteMe Uncensored and several other similar groups. I would also recommend HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography).
DMU will not pull any punches - they will tell you if your pictures are boring. They will not teach you to attain the highest level of artistic competence but they will help filter the shots that people other than yourself just "don't get".
I see that you selected these shots from a total of 190 - this alone explains part of the problem. 10% keepers from a rank beginner is unlikely. In my case, I keep maybe 1-2% of my shots. Cartier-Bresson allegedly said your first 10,000 pictures are your worst.
DMU will not pull any punches - they will tell you if your pictures are boring. They will not teach you to attain the highest level of artistic competence but they will help filter the shots that people other than yourself just "don't get".
I see that you selected these shots from a total of 190 - this alone explains part of the problem. 10% keepers from a rank beginner is unlikely. In my case, I keep maybe 1-2% of my shots. Cartier-Bresson allegedly said your first 10,000 pictures are your worst.
jippiejee
Well-known
Apart from vision, subject, meaning, and the visual grammar of photography, don't under-estimate the importance of technique. Your dismissive-ness of the 'technique' part of your photography reminded me of this interview with HCB reposted on AmericanSuburbX:
HCB: And for technique, technique is not a thing in the abstract. You can’t evade it. The technique has to be something to express what you want to say. You have to master your own technique, to know your tools to say what you have to say. Technique doesn’t exist in the abstract.
ASX interview...
HCB: And for technique, technique is not a thing in the abstract. You can’t evade it. The technique has to be something to express what you want to say. You have to master your own technique, to know your tools to say what you have to say. Technique doesn’t exist in the abstract.
ASX interview...
Teuthida
-
If I had one bit of advice it would be this : Once you've mastered the technical end of the craft, Ignore the critics. Shoot what you like, how you like it. If it works for you, its successful. Really talented creative people don't care what conventional wisdom says.
You have the choice. You can either be another sheep tagging along with the herd, or you can develop a vision that suits you.
You have the choice. You can either be another sheep tagging along with the herd, or you can develop a vision that suits you.
Warren T.
Well-known
You have already received a lot of great feedback.
To address your specific questions:
quality: good, bad, stunningly mediocre? aesthetically: mediocre, but don't worry, it will improve over time, I'm sure
unified personal vision: do you see one? could you say what it was if you do? No, I do not see a personal vision from this small sample. As others have already mentioned, the set is very mixed in terms of subject, style, color vs. b&w, and genre
influences: am I derivative or unique? could you guess any photographers that I like just by looking at my photos? your vision is unique to you, whether it reminds me of another photographer or style, is for me, not relevant to my enjoyment of your pictures.
where to go next: book recommendations, things I should try, etc. Try grouping some pictures into a cohesive "set". If your goal is to produce photos that can stand by themselves, then concentrate on showing and critiquing one image at a time for a while, to a select group of individuals whose work or style you like.
Of the ten shots, my favorite is "sleepyheads".
I applaud you for putting yourself out there like this, and I applaud all the well-considered responses to you. It takes time and effort to review and give useful comments.
--Warren
To address your specific questions:
quality: good, bad, stunningly mediocre? aesthetically: mediocre, but don't worry, it will improve over time, I'm sure
unified personal vision: do you see one? could you say what it was if you do? No, I do not see a personal vision from this small sample. As others have already mentioned, the set is very mixed in terms of subject, style, color vs. b&w, and genre
influences: am I derivative or unique? could you guess any photographers that I like just by looking at my photos? your vision is unique to you, whether it reminds me of another photographer or style, is for me, not relevant to my enjoyment of your pictures.
where to go next: book recommendations, things I should try, etc. Try grouping some pictures into a cohesive "set". If your goal is to produce photos that can stand by themselves, then concentrate on showing and critiquing one image at a time for a while, to a select group of individuals whose work or style you like.
Of the ten shots, my favorite is "sleepyheads".
I applaud you for putting yourself out there like this, and I applaud all the well-considered responses to you. It takes time and effort to review and give useful comments.
--Warren
Chris101
summicronia
I don't really find anything wrong with Red's pictures. They just raise some questions in my mind. So I stated my observations and asked my questions.
My biggest question whenever I look at a picture is "why was this picture taken?" Asking questions of that sort of others, helps me to answer it when I ask myself, internally.
Araakii
Well-known
Obviously he took way more than 190 in the last two years. So those 10 that he picked could already be 0.001% of the total that he took.
Benjamin Marks
Mentor
I think Red should ask follow-on questions if he has them. He has been remarkably un-defensive for someone who has asked for an unvarnished critique. If his feathers are ruffled, I have yet to see it. My two cents: sally forth - ask 'em if you've got 'em.
Ben
I can't answer that other than to say I thought it might be interesting.
I guess then that they all are snapshots.
that is correct.
the reason I have put so many shots up lately is because I have a large back log of rolls that I am going through with my scanner.
well the main question I have is do people here honestly believe my pictures would be better if I set the "correct" white and black points so that I used the entire range a monitor can display?
my secondary question relates to all of the people talking about grouping the pictures in sets being a good idea. directly, was this something you did instinctively or was this taught to you? if so, by whom?
thanks again to everyone who has contributed.
FrankS
Registered User
Hi red,
First, kudos to you for accepting the criticism of your images which you asked for, with such maturity. Creative pursuit can be intensely personal and one can be so invested in the images that any criticism is difficult to accept, and defensiveness is a natural reaction. (I know that's how I get.)
Yes, having white and black set points is an important technical requirement (unless you have a specific artistic reason to alter that) in order to communicate our content effectively.
As for sets or series of images, that is not necessary IMO, as strong images are capable of standing on their own.
Lastly, kudos to the RFF community that responded to red's request in a constructive manner with positive critisism, and particularly to those who withheld negative criticism.
First, kudos to you for accepting the criticism of your images which you asked for, with such maturity. Creative pursuit can be intensely personal and one can be so invested in the images that any criticism is difficult to accept, and defensiveness is a natural reaction. (I know that's how I get.)
Yes, having white and black set points is an important technical requirement (unless you have a specific artistic reason to alter that) in order to communicate our content effectively.
As for sets or series of images, that is not necessary IMO, as strong images are capable of standing on their own.
Lastly, kudos to the RFF community that responded to red's request in a constructive manner with positive critisism, and particularly to those who withheld negative criticism.
paulfish4570
Mentor
i want to ad something, red.
print a copy of your horse photo, the one i made a pick of the week but is not in your flickr set. this ia an interesting photo because of the apparent character in the horse's face and eyes, AND because of the composition. look at how the chain-link fence horizontal bar makes a near perfect perpindicular + with the alignment of the horse's face. look at how the photo is divided into clearly defined fields and shapes, the geometric parts of the whole; draw bold lines on your print following the demarcations and junctions. a contrastier print would snap that face into a 3D effect. this is a solid photo whether you consciously noticed the geometry as you framed, or not. however the parts got there, they made a whole.
now then, apply that kind of analysis to any of your other photos whether they are technically good "prints" or not, whether they have interesting light or not.
and back to your horse photo: interesting light is the only thing missing. this is where post-processing can make it better.
print a copy of your horse photo, the one i made a pick of the week but is not in your flickr set. this ia an interesting photo because of the apparent character in the horse's face and eyes, AND because of the composition. look at how the chain-link fence horizontal bar makes a near perfect perpindicular + with the alignment of the horse's face. look at how the photo is divided into clearly defined fields and shapes, the geometric parts of the whole; draw bold lines on your print following the demarcations and junctions. a contrastier print would snap that face into a 3D effect. this is a solid photo whether you consciously noticed the geometry as you framed, or not. however the parts got there, they made a whole.
now then, apply that kind of analysis to any of your other photos whether they are technically good "prints" or not, whether they have interesting light or not.
and back to your horse photo: interesting light is the only thing missing. this is where post-processing can make it better.
astro8
Well-known
Bravo for putting yourself out there.
I've been taking pictures for the last 2 years, the same as you, so I can relate. I've looked through all your flickr. The conclusion I've come to is that you are not thinking enough before you press the shutter.
Don't just record the scene, try and convey something to the viewer through your photo.
Your best shot in my opinion is a b&w one where the sunburst is between the buildings, with a lone figure below. The tilt was a little too much for me, but it has the makings of a good shot.
Photography is so easy, good photography is hard work. Out of all the photos I've taken there are only 2 maybe 3 that I think make the cut. It really helps to edit. It helps you, as you can see a style slowly develop. I keep only my best 32 photos in my rff gallery and keep editing them down as my 'eye' gets better. I should edit this down to just 10.
Your photos could also improve with some extra work in PP. Some are really flat.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
I've been taking pictures for the last 2 years, the same as you, so I can relate. I've looked through all your flickr. The conclusion I've come to is that you are not thinking enough before you press the shutter.
Don't just record the scene, try and convey something to the viewer through your photo.
Your best shot in my opinion is a b&w one where the sunburst is between the buildings, with a lone figure below. The tilt was a little too much for me, but it has the makings of a good shot.
Photography is so easy, good photography is hard work. Out of all the photos I've taken there are only 2 maybe 3 that I think make the cut. It really helps to edit. It helps you, as you can see a style slowly develop. I keep only my best 32 photos in my rff gallery and keep editing them down as my 'eye' gets better. I should edit this down to just 10.
Your photos could also improve with some extra work in PP. Some are really flat.
Anyway, that's my take on it.
JayM
Well-known
I group pictures because it is fun and it is something that I can do to "make" something out of the photographs I have as I do not believe in longing for or chasing after the iconic image.
I started doing it because I was curious about why and how other people did it. Especially when it seemed to make no sense. What I've learned on my own has fed into understanding and appreciation for what others have done, which in turn has fed back into clearer understanding of what I am doing and want to do.
Hard to find a better teacher than yourself as long as your are honestly and actively trying to learn
I started doing it because I was curious about why and how other people did it. Especially when it seemed to make no sense. What I've learned on my own has fed into understanding and appreciation for what others have done, which in turn has fed back into clearer understanding of what I am doing and want to do.
Hard to find a better teacher than yourself as long as your are honestly and actively trying to learn
FrankS
Registered User
It is wise not to discard and/or break rules until one has first understood and mastered them.
Chris Bail
Regular Guy
+1 for Delete Me Uncensored flickr group. It's brutal. I've never had a photo saved there, and some of people pointed out (in very witty fashion) some of what was wrong with my favorite photos. They didn't cease being my favorites though.
Thardy
Mentor
It would be nice to know where to look for these rules. Is there a book, website or magazine where one can look for guidance?
FrankS
Registered User
You're not serious, right? Photo 101, the basics.
kbg32
neo-romanticist
"and, no you have guessed right. they aren't trying to convey anything. I don't have a story to tell, or a message to get across and (here is my moment of honesty) I think that is a worthless pursuit, personally. I am merely interested in making some nice photographs that stand by themselves. the bit about the personal vision is I want to know if they are identifiable as all being my photographs or if they are disjointed (you indicate the latter)."
As I read this, I find this very telling as to the root of what a lot of people are telling you. I find this statement quite ambiguous, clear, but quite "disjointed". Clarity of vision does not come easy or quickly. One has to work at it and it takes time. If you find conveying a message a "worthless pursuit", how can you make "nice" photographs that stand by themselves?
Maybe less worry and have fun. The "good" photographs will come on their own.
As I read this, I find this very telling as to the root of what a lot of people are telling you. I find this statement quite ambiguous, clear, but quite "disjointed". Clarity of vision does not come easy or quickly. One has to work at it and it takes time. If you find conveying a message a "worthless pursuit", how can you make "nice" photographs that stand by themselves?
Maybe less worry and have fun. The "good" photographs will come on their own.
well, I do have fun. if I had to live by the quality of my output I would have found something else by now, I'm sure. I've got other hobbies, and there are things I am very good at. this is an enjoyable pursuit, but I don't do things, I overdo them.
the fact that my authorship does not shine through the pictures is embarrassing to me. while Im sure everyone here has a different idea of my greatest failing in this endeavor, this is what I have personally identified.
Paul, I took some time and did this:
Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
does this fit your description? It's not just +50 contrast in PS, I went in and set a white point that brings the horse up to the highest value I can get on my monitor while still retaining detail, and a black level that barely blocks the shadows in the horses nose.
here is the original from my stream:
Untitled by redisburning, on Flickr
To anyone who commented about this:
I can do something similar with any of the photos on my flickr if you think this treatment is bad and you honestly believe this would make the pictures better / more impactful.
I left the pictures dark, I don't know I like them the way I edited them or I would have done it some other way. If people think that my problem with them isn't the scanning, please let me know what you think I could do better to make these technically better.
Chris101
summicronia
Excellent, because I think that snapshots are the 'highest and best use' of a camera. As long as you enjoy the photography you do, keep doing it. But do try to remember to ask yourself questions about it as you do.
Occasionally you will surprise yourself with your answer.